🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:21:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com>
wrote:

>dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> dhm_at_best_dot_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>> still unable to contribute anything meaningful
>>>>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
>>>>>>>>>>>> [incoherent rant]
>>>>>>>>>>> Here you are back again, still working against the
>>>>>>>>>>> interests of homeless people, still unable to
>>>>>>>>>>> articulate your belief in your own words as to how
>>>>>>>>>>> helping to keep homeless people homeless is good for them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You really are a tunnel-vision shitbag.
>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you address the authors of the postings that you disagree
>>>>>>>>>> with?
>>>>>>>>> I already did, once, the first time you posted one of
>>>>>>>>> the moron's crap.  But I'm not interested in arguing
>>>>>>>>> with some guy who posts through a cat's paw.  You agree
>>>>>>>>> with the moron, so you should defend the point of view.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why are you serving as the dummy's cat's paw instead of
>>>>>>>>> actually arguing the point?
>>>>>>>> That is a fair question.  But your syllogism is faulty.
>>>>>>> There's no "syllogism"; you've misused the word.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you think a debate is worth having, why aren't you
>>>>>>> participating in it?  Why are you merely acting as some
>>>>>>> other twit's cat's paw?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem clearly unable to articulate any independent
>>>>>>> thoughts about homelessness or any other topic.  You
>>>>>>> are all style and no substance.
>>>>>> When you jump to conclusions as you have done, a corresponding
>>>>>> syllogism can be inferred.
>>>>> You're still whiffing off - that means gutlessly
>>>>> avoiding the issue.  The issue is not syllogisms, of
>>>>> which *none* can legitimately be inferred.  The issue
>>>>> is homelessness, and your inability to articulate any
>>>>> of your own thoughts on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Answer the question:  why do you allow your childlike
>>>>> sympathy for homeless people to cloud your judgment
>>>>> into making you work against their interests?  They are
>>>>> not well served by things that perpetuate their
>>>>> homelessness, but that's what you're doing.
>>>> So wh...
>>> There's the predictable continued evasion.
>>>
>>> Tell us your thoughts on homelessness, shithead.  And you can leave out
>>> where you got them, because no one cares.  Just state your case.  Stop
>>> with the sophomoric evasiveness.
>> 
>> So, what do you want to
>
>Still going with the sophomoric evasiveness.
>
>I know that you think you're "winning" some kind of 
>game here.  You are wrong.

OMG, you guys are driving me nuts.

Rudy, Daniel is homeless.  I think his last response was serious.  If
you're really interested in his "thoughts on homelessness", just ask
him.  I believe he has a whole website devoted to the issue, by the
way.

~Queenie in Santa Cruz, now returning you to your regular programming.